{"id":118783,"date":"2009-02-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-vs-rajesh-on-19-february-2009"},"modified":"2018-07-11T18:03:13","modified_gmt":"2018-07-11T12:33:13","slug":"abraham-vs-rajesh-on-19-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-vs-rajesh-on-19-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Abraham vs Rajesh on 19 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Abraham vs Rajesh on 19 February, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nMACA.No. 749 of 2005()\n\n\n1. ABRAHAM, S\/O. JOSEPH,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. RAJESH, S\/O. THANKAPPAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. MRS.SEENA DAVIS, MANJOORAN HOUSE,\n\n3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.DENY JOSEPH\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.S.MAMMU\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR\n\n Dated :19\/02\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                            R.BASANT &\n                      C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.\n               * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n                      M.A.C.A.No.749 of 2005\n                    ----------------------------------------\n             Dated this the 19th day of February 2009\n\n                          J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
BASANT,J<\/p>\n
     The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us.<\/p>\n
He suffered personal injuries in a motor accident which took<\/p>\n
place on 09\/02\/2001.       He was allegedly employed as a sales<\/p>\n
executive getting an income of Rs.10,000\/- per mensum . He<\/p>\n
suffered displaced fracture of the coccyx. He was an in-patient<\/p>\n
for a period of four days. He had allegedly suffered permanent<\/p>\n
physical disability. A medical board which examined him issued<\/p>\n
Ext.A5 disability certificate to show that he was suffering<\/p>\n
physical disability to the tune of 15%. “Pain tip of the back, back<\/p>\n
pain, inability to sit due to pain, inability to lie flat due to low<\/p>\n
back pain, inability to squat and climb stairs” is the alleged<\/p>\n
disability. Tenderness at the sacral area and tip of the coccyx<\/p>\n
were also found.       Spinal movement was restricted by 60%.<\/p>\n
These are reported in Ext.A6 disability certificate.<\/p>\n
     2.    The claimant examined himself as PW1 and his<\/p>\n
employer as PW2. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. No doctor was<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A.No.749\/05                2<\/span><\/p>\n
examined to prove Ext.A6.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the<\/p>\n
relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the appellant is<\/p>\n
entitled for an amount of Rs.55,500\/- as compensation as per the<\/p>\n
details shown below:\n<\/p>\n
      1.   Transport to hospital          Rs.500\/-\n\n      2.   Loss of earnings               Rs.9,000\/-\n           (Rs.3,000 x 3)\n\n      3.   Bystander's expenditure        Rs.500\/-\n\n      4.   Extra nourishment              Rs.500\/-\n\n      5.   Pain and suffering             Rs.10,000\/-\n\n      6.   Loss of earning capacity       Rs.10,000\/- (global)\n\n      7.   Loss of amenities of life      Rs.15,000\/-\n\n      8.   Future discomfort              Rs.10,000\/-\n\n                     Total                Rs.55,500\/-\n\n      Accordingly,  the   Tribunal   awarded   an   amount    of\n\nRs.55,500\/- as compensation.\n\n<\/pre>\n
      4.   The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned<\/p>\n
award. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellant wants to mount against the<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A.No.749\/05                3<\/span><\/p>\n
impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant submits<\/p>\n
that loss of earning capacity has not been assessed correctly.<\/p>\n
The multiplier-multiplicand method must have been employed.<\/p>\n
The Tribunal has awarded only a global amount of Rs.10,000\/-.<\/p>\n
In these circumstances, the amount awarded under the head of<\/p>\n
loss of earning capacity consequent to disability suffered<\/p>\n
warrants interference, it is submitted.     The appellant has a<\/p>\n
further grievance that the multiplicand is not correctly reckoned.<\/p>\n
Only an amount of Rs.3,000\/- was reckoned as income. The same<\/p>\n
is inadequate, it is contended.\n<\/p>\n
      5.   The Tribunal took note of the evidence available about<\/p>\n
the income of the appellant. We do note that initially it was<\/p>\n
asserted that the appellant is a sales executive. In the disability<\/p>\n
certificate he is described as an office worker.       The salary<\/p>\n
certificate showed that his income was only Rs.6,000\/-.       The<\/p>\n
tribunal, in these circumstances, was not prepared to swallow<\/p>\n
the materials placed before the court and drew a reasonable<\/p>\n
inference of prudence that notwithstanding the inadequacy in<\/p>\n
evidence, an amount of Rs.3,000\/- per mensum can be reckoned<\/p>\n
as monthly earnings. In the state of evidence and materials<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A.No.749\/05                4<\/span><\/p>\n
available, we are not persuaded to agree that the said decision<\/p>\n
warrants interference.\n<\/p>\n
      6.   The multiplier-multiplicand method was not adopted<\/p>\n
by the tribunal. But from the compensation awarded under the<\/p>\n
head of loss of amenities, loss of earning capacity and loss of<\/p>\n
discomfiture – a total amount of Rs.35,000\/-, it appears to be<\/p>\n
evident that the tribunal was satisfied that the appellant has<\/p>\n
suffered physical disability as a result of the accident.      The<\/p>\n
problem was one of not correctly quantifying the percentage of<\/p>\n
such physical disability. The tribunal must have taken note of<\/p>\n
the nature of injuries including fracture of the coccyx as also the<\/p>\n
details available in the disability certificate.   Of course, the<\/p>\n
appellant is to be blamed for not adducing better and authentic<\/p>\n
evidence to prove the contents of the disability certificate to the<\/p>\n
satisfaction of the court. But all the same, we are not persuaded<\/p>\n
to agree that this is a fit case where the Tribunal must have<\/p>\n
come to a reasonable conclusion about the inevitable and<\/p>\n
irreducible percentage of physical disability and consequent<\/p>\n
reduction in earning capapcity. In the circumstances of the case,<\/p>\n
we are persuaded to agree that such disability on the basis of<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A.No.749\/05               5<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.A5 as also the other details can safely be fixed at 8%.<\/p>\n
Consequently, the appellant must be held to be entitled for a<\/p>\n
total amount of Rs.37,440\/- (Rs.3,000\/- x 12 x 13 x 8\/100).<\/p>\n
Deducting an amount of Rs.10,000\/- which has already been<\/p>\n
awarded under the head of loss of earning capacity, the<\/p>\n
appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.27,440\/-.<\/p>\n
The challenge in this appeal succeeds to the above extent only.<\/p>\n
\n\n     7.    In the result,\n\n     a)    This M.A.C.A is allowed in part.\n\n     b)    It is found that the appellant is entitled to a further\n\n<\/pre>\n
amount of Rs.27,440\/- (Rupees twenty seven thousand four<\/p>\n
hundred and forty only) in addition to the amounts already<\/p>\n
awarded by the Tribunal. Interest shall be payable on the entire<\/p>\n
amount at the rates already directed by the tribunal from the<\/p>\n
date of the petition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                           (R.BASANT, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
                                    (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
\njsr<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A.No.749\/05    6<\/span><\/p>\n
M.A.C.A.No.749\/05    7<\/span><\/p>\n
R.BASANT &C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
                 .No. of 200<\/span><\/p>\n
        ORDER\/JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                 06\/02\/2009<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Abraham vs Rajesh on 19 February, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM MACA.No. 749 of 2005() 1. ABRAHAM, S\/O. JOSEPH, … Petitioner Vs 1. RAJESH, S\/O. THANKAPPAN, … Respondent 2. MRS.SEENA DAVIS, MANJOORAN HOUSE, 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., For Petitioner :SRI.DENY JOSEPH For Respondent :SRI.S.MAMMU The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-118783","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAbraham vs Rajesh on 19 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-vs-rajesh-on-19-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abraham vs Rajesh on 19 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-vs-rajesh-on-19-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-11T12:33:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abraham-vs-rajesh-on-19-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abraham-vs-rajesh-on-19-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Abraham vs Rajesh on 19 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-11T12:33:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abraham-vs-rajesh-on-19-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":805,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abraham-vs-rajesh-on-19-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abraham-vs-rajesh-on-19-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abraham-vs-rajesh-on-19-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Abraham vs Rajesh on 19 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-11T12:33:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abraham-vs-rajesh-on-19-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abraham-vs-rajesh-on-19-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abraham-vs-rajesh-on-19-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abraham vs Rajesh on 19 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Abraham vs Rajesh on 19 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-vs-rajesh-on-19-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abraham vs Rajesh on 19 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-vs-rajesh-on-19-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-11T12:33:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-vs-rajesh-on-19-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-vs-rajesh-on-19-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Abraham vs Rajesh on 19 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-11T12:33:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-vs-rajesh-on-19-february-2009"},"wordCount":805,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-vs-rajesh-on-19-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-vs-rajesh-on-19-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-vs-rajesh-on-19-february-2009","name":"Abraham vs Rajesh on 19 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-11T12:33:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-vs-rajesh-on-19-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-vs-rajesh-on-19-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-vs-rajesh-on-19-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abraham vs Rajesh on 19 February, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118783","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=118783"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118783\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=118783"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=118783"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=118783"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}